monty57

No it isn't. There were some valid concerns raised about Ryan Braun as a player and his contract. Personally, no, I don't think his contract is the worst in franchise history. And I do think he's showing that he'll continue to be a good player for the foreseeable future. You proved my point for me. Thanks. This board was a lot better when there weren't so many self-righteous people. It's becoming border line "JS Comments" with some of the postings. I think you might have misread something he said, because he didn't say anything anywhere near "self-righteous."

I simply do not believe in results-oriented thinking. If the Brewers offensive players stay healthy, we make the playoffs and get hot like the Royals and get to the World Series, it doesn't make the Lohse deal better. When we signed Lohse we had a team that was on the fringe of being a playoff team with players controlled for a couple more years so the wins per dollar was in the optimum spot to sign a FA player. I think people still somehow think that Lohse is just another Suppan when he was clearly a much better pitcher when we signed him and while he played for us. I don't see any way to call the deal a debacle though. I agree it wasn't a debacle. As I said, at the time of the signing, it looked like the team would be better off getting younger and not older. That's not results-oriented. While the results do show that Lohse hasn't really done anything but help the team sell more tickets, it's not why I was against the signing. I (and apparently Melvin from his recent quotes) thought at the time of the signing that the team went all-out in an attempt to win in a window, and the window had closed. It's just that the owner didn't realize it. The best thing they could have done was to make moves to get younger, but instead the owner insisted on continuing to spend a good portion of the team's payroll on aging "name" players. As I mentioned, Lohse has done better than I expected. Most players have retired by Lohse's current age. That he defied the odds (at least up to the end of this spring, we'll see if he bounces back or if he's hit his cliff), and that is being used to justify the signing is being results-oriented. As to last year, people can justify it with "if {enter excuse} hadn't happened," what happened did happen, and the team ended just over .500, which was still above pre-season expectations. They weren't expected to be a "fringe playoff" team. Most "experts" expected them to be just ahead of the Cubs in the cellar of the Central, where they had been for a couple of seasons. They played well over their heads for a month, poorly for a month, and around expectations (below .500) for most of the year. They weren't a "playoff-talent" team any more than a no-name prospect who comes up and goes 5-for-5 in his first game is a 1.000 hitter. Give him time, and he will show his "true colors," but with that 5-for-5 start, his numbers will look good for a while. Lohse's deal itself isn't the problem. It is the strategy of doing that type move every year and relying on those players to be your "core" guys. Lohse's deal was the best of a "meh" bunch of "name" players signed too late in their careers to contracts that guaranteed them money for years in which they should have been retired. We'll see after this season if Lohse's contract qualifies for this category, as he's sure started the season poorly.

I think we do know. The team will got hot, maybe get back closer to .500 and if they finish the season around .500 some will see it as a success after the slow start and they might even be tricked into thinking "if we just add one or two more pieces, we'll have a shot at the playoffs in 2016". I'd rather players get hot so their trade value increases, and then this inevitable rebuild process might not have to be as prolonged. That would never happen. Oh wait, that's exactly what happened in 2012 and 2013, and the opposite of what happened in 2014. I don't know why this team is so "all or nothing," but I'm with you on this post. The team will get better - It's too talented not to - but it's not going to make the playoffs this year, so at least Lohse, Broxton, Ramirez and Parra should be traded, and I really hope they play well enough to bring something back. I've felt all along that if Braun's thumb is healthy, he should be a good player, and the article linked a couple of pages ago stating that he's trying to break bad habits makes sense. I still think that the second extension is going to play out like the Soriano deal, where he'll have some good seasons "early," (remember the second extension starts next year) but as he ages he and his contract will get blamed for any problems the Brewers have. The difference is that we will have to pay him for a long time after he is no longer a Brewer, making him even harder than Soriano to trade.

I also get a chuckle about the Lohse debacle comments people make. He's had around a 3.50 ERA as a Brewer outside of 3 bad starts to start this year. I didn't care for the last year on his contract but this is hardly a debacle. Suppan was a debacle but people who really got baseball knew that one would be. Melvin's strategy for signing aging veteran "name" players is to give the player one more guaranteed year than any other team is willing to give them. We then get a good season or two from the player, and the final year or two of the deal looks generally looks pretty bad. Lohse has surprised me with how well he aged up to the end of spring training this year. I hope he's just missing his spots and giving up HR that can be corrected. So far, he looks like the best 30-something free agent acquisition Melvin has made, but since he's a free agent at the end of the year I really hope they trade him. Unfortunately, he's not pitching very well, and while someone would probably trade for him now figuring this is just a bad start, if he's still pitching like this in July, we're not getting anything for him. As to whether signing him was worth it, from his numbers I'd say he's been worth it. From the standpoint that it hasn't helped us to the playoffs, and at the time of the signing it looked like the team would be better off getting younger and not older, it wasn't worth it. How you view the signing really just depends on if you like the current approach, which to me appears to be signing "name" players to sell tickets and make money rather than giving them a good shot at the playoffs.

Although I don't like the way the team has been built for quite a while, I don't think anyone could have predicted the start they've had this season, which led to Roenicke's firing. Had they just had a "normal" bad start, Roenicke would still be the manager. Melvin makes the decision on the manager, and much of the "baseball world" was calling for Roenicke's head after last season. If there was some grand plan to replace Roenicke with Counsell, it would have been easy to do it then, they wouldn't have worked out some scheme where Counsell would back out of the Rays deal so he could hide in the shadows for a month and take his spot when he failed. I'm cynical, but I don't believe Melvin expected the team to blow up. I think it's far more likely that the Rays liked him, but were not going to hire him so they allowed him to "back out" to save some face. The best parallel I can draw is this: I just saw the Michigan governor today say he wasn't going to run for President because "the work's not done in Michigan." Does anyone think that's the real reason, or did his team do some polling, which discovered he didn't have a shot at winning the nomination, so he was better off keeping the job he has, not looking foolish in a national spotlight, and aiding his chances for his future? Life in the public spotlight can be a funny thing. As it worked out, people can say "the Rays are a smart team, and they wanted him, so he must have something." Had Counsell not withdrawn, then he would have been the loser, and the narrative could have been "the Rays are smart and they didn't take him, so there must be something wrong with him."

Exactly. Right now, there is no market. Teams aren't trading players. We own the hot stove. With that in mind, you start the trading process now. Don't wait two months to see if we can get back in the playoff race. This doesn't mean you have to deal someone - but it leaves the option open. Teams can overspend to acquire a player early - the A's got Samardzija last year at the all-star break. The Brewers did the same thing to get Sabathia back in 2008. In both cases, each team was willing to overspend to make the deal happen then and there instead of waiting until the end of July. It only takes one team to get antsy and pay a premium for a player. Again, you don't have to make a deal early (you don't even have to make a deal this season if there's nothing good on the table). But if a good offer is put on the table, don't be afraid to make the move. It also eliminates the possibility of an injury taking someone off the market. Plus, for someone like Lohse, GMs may still believe he's just going through a rough patch and will revert to his normal self. That may happen, or he may have hit a cliff. If I'm the Brewers and I get a good offer for Lohse, I trade him ASAP in case he doesn't regain his form. Ditto Ramirez. We may be able to convince someone he's just off to one of his normal slow starts before he puts up All Star numbers, but not if he's still hitting poorly at the deadline. As a whole, the team should trade a lot of players, but each player will be a unique case. Some may be better to trade immediately, while others probably make sense to hold off on (like Garza, who won't get much now, but could be in demand at the deadline or in the offseason if he starts pitching well).

I kind of like all of this attention surrounding the potential Brewer selloff. The more GM's drooling over the guys the Brewers could put on the market, the better chance a bidding war kicks in and the Brewers are able to get more value back.

I think he was talking about the approach at the plate, and that he would like to see more hitters with his approach. The Brewers under Melvin have produced guys who put up good numbers, but they aren't necessarily the most disciplined bunch.

I really don't think he ever had interest in the Rays job and I don't think he would truly considering managing else where. I personally think he knew he could get the job in Milwaukee after Roenicke would inevitably be axed. I wouldn't even be surprised if Doug and Craig talked about it. Maybe getting deep into the Rays search was something to convince Melvin. Regardless I highly doubt Doug and Craig didn't talk about the job until magically 2 weeks ago. If this is the case, why didn't they fire Roenicke after last season and replace him with Counsell? There are only 30 MLB manager positions available and millions of people who would like to be one. If you want to be a manager and are offered the position, you would generally be crazy not to accept.

Melvin definitely has a soft spot for hitters with big power and little discipline, and pitchers with big arms and no control. Defense... what's that? I feel your pain, and agree that we should target a more diverse group of players. I enjoy watching Lind play, but as TLB said, he's only under contract through next season, so he should be traded before leaving for free agency This doesn't have to be now, it could be in the offseason, but we probably shouldn't wait until next season's trade deadline, as he would lose value with less "team control" remaining, and he does have a history of injury, so trading him when he's healthy and productive seems to be the best idea. I don't want to derail this too much, as it's a thread specifically about Lind, but if the team decides to sell, I don't really want a free-agent-to-be like Parra covering CF. I'd rather trade Parra as well and let young players get a shot. You might as well get something out of the season, and getting some experience for some of your prospects and seeing how they respond to their chance in the majors is probably the best we will be able to hope for. Plus, we'll get something back for Parra, and as much as it hurts to think along this line, losing a few more games will get us a better draft position.

Can we hold off on calling the Cubs and Astros models for a franchise until they have actually won something? Until they actually make the World Series, they have done nothing the Brewers haven't done, just with lower attendance. Is there a sane person in the world who wouldn't trade the Brewers organization for the Cubs organization right now? Mark Attanasio?

A platoon of those solid below average hitters would not even be REMOTELY close to Adam Lind's 168 OPS+...if you don't know a lot about OPS+ that is MVP like production. Even when Lind comes back down to earth(still all star type production) those two could only dream to be half of what Lind is. Agree. Lind was a really good pickup this offseason. If we decide to trade him, he should bring back more than a Marco Estrada in return. But I will agree with Brew4U saying it has nothing to do with "Mythical prospect." Neither Rogers nor Clark are remotely close to being the type of guys we should look for if we were to trade any of our good trade chips. They are the type guys who you hope can play passable baseball during the down years while you wait for your more talented young guys to make their way to the majors. I don't get the hate for prospects. Even an untrained eye can watch kids play and see that some of them are far better than their competition. That holds true in minor leagues as well. Sure, many will not make it as the competition gets tougher, and some will succumb to injury, but that happens to "proven" guys as well. The Brewer brass have tried to do everything they could to keep the MLB team as competitive as possible for an extended period. It's time to restock the farm. Prospects aren't "mythical," they're simply young baseball players. Some are better than others, so we want to try to get as many of those as possible to increase the odds that some will make an impact on the MLB roster some day. Lind has been wonderful to watch this season, but he is only around through next year. If we aren't in the playoff hunt this year, and don't feel we will be competing for the playoffs next year, than it makes a lot of sense to trade him. He will get to play for a playoff-hopeful team, while the Brewers will get some guys that they hope will help them down the road. You may crash and burn on the trade, or you may get 12-18 years of MLB production for winning teams vs 1.5 years of production for losing teams. At this point, it's a risk worth taking.

Give us their young (MLB and farm) players and we'll give them ours and we can start talking about "blowing them up." I'll bet with the way they're run that if they're not in the playoff hunt, they will have much less issue with trading off some "name" players for prospects than the Brewers have been in the recent past. If the Brewers refuse to rebuild, we'll see which works better: running your team like the Rays of the last decade (Pirates), or running your team like the Cubs of the 1970's (Brewers).

If 3 mill fans allows a $110 payroll, does it follow that 1.5 mill fans allows a profitable team at $55 mill. I think it may be easy to be at say $60 mill after this year, if they go the full rebuild. No, it's not overly complex, but it's not quite that simple. First, the team has to pay costs such as debt repayment, utilities bills, vendors and their inventory, etc. Then they have to figure out the cost of the farm, which is very likely to go up if we're putting more emphasis on building it up, and we get some better draft picks and a bigger pool for international signings. What is left over after all other costs are paid is what can be budgeted for the MLB team payroll. The rate it drops will probably be greater than the rate of attendance falling. That said, I think the Brewers will be fine. Since Miller Park was built, they have been under 2MM fans only twice (the 2nd and 3rd year of the park's existence - there was a huge spike the year it opened). At that time, much of the fan base hated the Seligs and simply refused to spend their money on the team. We are nowhere near that point right now, and I would be shocked if the attendance fell below 2MM, and it would probably take a long, unsuccessful rebuild to get it that low. I truly believe the bigger risk is in putting out a low-70s win team every year. In recent years, we've seen a fairly substantial drop in attendance in down years as fans are bored with the "same old" and only show up late in the season if the team is winning. This will eventually lead to a lot of fans leaving forever, and a new "baseline" attendance far below what we're used to. A rebuild done correctly will give fans something to be excited about. Attendance will naturally drop off for a year or two, but I believe those fans will come back as soon as the exciting young players start to show up at the MLB level, and we'll be back in the high 2MM's on a regular basis if they show any signs of competency.

This is why I hope they're willing to part with Gomez. It looks like Lucroy's off the table, so we'll have his "face" trying to sell tickets for two years instead of bringing back prospects who can help with the rebuild. Trading Lohse, K-Rod, etc may bring something, but it's unlikely they'll bring back top prospects. If all we do is trade them (holding on to both Gomez and Lucroy), then we really won't have helped the future much at all, and pretty soon we will have lost the opportunity to trade Gomez and Lucroy for the value of which you speak. Then we will be in an even tougher situation. As to the time frame, it was Melvin who said he felt a rebuild, if started after our window of 2011-2012, would have taken around four years, but by delaying it, could take around six years. Those were his words (including his belief that the window was '11-'12). I hope it can be quicker than that, and I think if done correctly we should at least be on the "upward trend" side of the rebuild in a couple of years. But to the point of comparison to the Cubs. In 2010 - the first bad year as their "window" was closing, they had a young Geovany Soto at catcher posting a .890 OPS, 135 OPS+, Derrick Lee coming off a .972 OPS season in 2009 , rookie phenom Starlin Castro, Fukudome posting a .809 OPS, Ryan Dempster (ERA+ 110), Gorzellany (ERA+ 104), Zambrano (ERA+ 127), Lilly (ERA+ 115) in the starting rotation and Carlos Marmol (ERA+ 167!!) and Marshall (ERA+ 160!!) in the bullpen. They could have brought back huge returns if they had decided to rebuild a short time before they did. Holding on, refusing to believe that playing for a "window" will eventually lead to a rebuild, can cost you. The longer you wait, the costlier it can get, and the deeper the rebuild will cut. Even with that lost time, however, the rebuild took 2012, 2013 and 2014, and they are now bearing the fruits of their rebuild. It just seems like a lot longer than that because for a couple of years prior to their admitting that they needed a rebuild, they were an expensive team with declining talent that refused to admit anything was wrong. Much like the Brewers, only the Cubs figured it out in two years, and it has taken the Brewers four (assuming they have actually figured it out). My biggest fear is that they will let ticket sales projections determine their path (as the recent Melvin quote suggests). They will only trade guys who are going to be free agents (mostly for salary relief), sign Uribe this offseason and try to convince people that they have solved the problem. This path will still remind me of the Cubs, just not in the time frame I just discussed. This will remind me of the Cubs I grew up with who for decades ran a strategy of putting enough "names" on the field that fans will show up, while not really having much chance of ever winning anything.

It's called marketing... what message you send to your fans. The Cubs went for it in a "window" of 2007-2009 and make the LDS the first two years, drawing 3.252MM and 3.3MM fans. They didn't make the playoffs in 2009, but still drew 3.168MM fans with a 2nd place finish. The normal outcome of a "window" strategy hit in 2010, when they finished with 75 wins in 2010 and 71 wins in 2011 and drew 3MM fans (around 10% less than their peak). They realized what needed to be done and went into rebuild mode, but did so by hiring Epstein in Oct 2011 and telling the fans how and why they were rebuilding. Attendance dropped, but only to 2.88MM, 2.64MM and 2.65MM (still around 80% of their peak year) in the three rebuilding years. I would guess the number will be significantly higher this year, and will probably be higher than it would have been had they decided not to rebuild, but instead kept on the path they were on in 2010 and 2011. The Brewers have hit 3MM three times. The playoff years of 2008 and 2011, and the "playoff hangover" year of 2009. Since 2011 (3.071MM), we drew 2.831MM ("playoff hangover" year), 2.531MM in 2010, and 2.797MM with the playoff hopes of last year. I'd imagine this year will be around 2.5MM, when their record team payroll means probably budgeted for closer to 3MM. Note: this is why they're so flustered, fired the manager, and are already shopping expensive vets. The Brewer brass takes this data and thinks "we need to at least win 70-something games to keep getting at least 2.5MM, with the occasional 2.8MM." I look at this and figure that Brewer fans are going to flee if we keep with the same strategy, but remain in the low-to-mid 70 win area, and while they may stay in the low-to-mid 2MM's for a while, 4-5 years from now they will have lost a significant portion of their ticket sales. I think that if they market the rebuild correctly (as the Cubs did), they will probably see something of a dropoff in sales in the immediate future (probably to the low 2MM's - maybe 2.2??), but will regain these ticket sales in a few years when the young players once again energize the fanbase. Once again, the Brewer brass takes immediate gratification (ticket sales now) over long-term planning. If Melvin could figure out how not to spend every penny to maximize payroll every year, they could easily make it through a couple of years of lesser ticket sales, and therefore when the ticket sales come back up they will have a lower payroll with the ability to add payroll to complement the young, cheap players with veteran free agents.

While I agree with your premise in principle, the reality is that the higher up in the MiLB chain a prospect is the more expensive he is, this is no different than MLB. The better performance you get, the more you have to pay... So if you're talking about get the best possible talent for a player like a Lohse for example, well that talent most likely isn't going to be in AA or AAA, he's going to be in any of the rookie leagues or A ball. A player like Lohse could land you a big armed reliever with control issues in AA but that type of prospect doesn't interest me. If they aren't consistently throwing strikes by the time they hit AA, and especially AAA, then I'd rather move on. The upper minors are filled with those guys, especially AAA, the majority of them are never going to have a sustained MLB career because if they haven't learned it by then, what's going to change? Especially in the Brewer organization, it's not like we have a great record of developing pitchers. Furthermore I'm interested in starting pitching, so any time we target a reliever in a trade it will draw my ire by default. I'd rather acquire as many big armed starting pitchers as possible and convert them to relief as last resort rather than trading 180 innings for 60 from the get go. I believe that it's much easier to find relievers than it is to find starting pitching. I'd rather devote more resources to the more difficult path... True. I guess what I am thinking is that if we really sell into the idea of doing this, we should get a lot of guys back. If one of them happens to be an MLB-caliber 3B who's blocked with his current club, I'm fine with that. This may not be reality, but I'll use it as an example because I know the names: If the Mets offer a package centered around Syndergaard for Gomez, I'm not going to turn it down just because we won't be contending in Syndergaard's first couple of seasons. Getting someone like this may mean we get two prospects back instead of four younger guys, but I'd have a hard time passing it up. Of course, Lucroy and Gomez are the only trade chips we have who could bring back a stud like this, and I would think that trading either of them should bring back an "elite" guy (probably higher minors) plus at least one other Top 100 guy in the lower minors. I completely agree that if we trade a lesser guy (Lohse, K-Rod, etc) I'd rather get an A-baller with a lot of upside than a "low ceiling" guy in the high minors.

What if we trade Lucroy for someone like Correa, and then he either busts as a prospect or gets in a freak Kendrys Morales-like injury and ruins his career? What if we hold on to Lucroy and his wife keeps dropping suitcases on him? Anything can happen, so here's the way I see it: Trading someone like Lucroy or Gomez should bring you back multiple high-end prospects. Let's say you trade both of them and get 6-8 prospects back. You also trade lesser pieces (Lohse, K-Rod, Lind, etc) and get additional prospects back. Some of these guys will fail. You hope to get a few guys who will put up some All Star seasons and others who have MLB careers. That's a good portion of your roster in a couple of seasons filled with talented, inexpensive guys, even if a lot of the guys we get back never make it. We get these guys for six years at the same time our own guys (Arcia, Coulter, Taylor, etc) will be ready to hit the majors. Again, some of our own guys will fail as well, but by "selling off" some guys now, we set ourselves up to have a good number of young, inexpensive talent with "team control" hitting the major leagues over the next handful of years, even with a high flame-out rate. Right now, it's about getting as much talent in the minor leagues as possible. Sell the fans on the quality of prospects we're getting back and have the announcers showcase how well it's working elsewhere to keep fan interest as high as it can be. Bite the bullet for a while as we gradually work the first of these guys into the MLB roster. Supplement them with a few mid-tier free agent signings we try to flip on an annual basis. See how guys like Davis, Gennett, Jungmann, Nelson, etc progress to see if there's anything worth extending or if we use them as semi-talented filler for a while until we flip them when their replacements force their way on to the MLB roster. Once a "core" starts to build and the MLB team starts to see some success, there will be loads of money to sign some free agents to complement the core of young players, and we'll hope at that point to have a foundation of talent that can be successful for an extended period of time. At that point, we should still have a strong farm, as we will likely have received some top draft picks, who will not be MLB ready when the "first wave" of guys (the current farm plus what we get in trade) are forming the aforementioned core. As long as this "future wave" of prospects is not used as trade bait to win in a "window" with the "first wave," we should be able to continue to add young, inexpensive talent with "team control" to the MLB team on a regular basis, allowing us to trade off a few expendable pieces to further stock the farm. It's not easy, it will start with some tough times, followed by ups-and-downs, but I think it's the best strategy they could employ at this time. As a bonus, I think a lot of the fans are now ready for it, making it easier for Attanasio to sign off on the deal

I like the idea of making Melvin a team president and finding a younger GM. I personally think the game has passed him by, but he is still a great baseball man. You can't win with a bunch of players swinging for the fences which is what he tried to do in Texas and here. I don't know that I like that idea. We already have an overly hands-on owner bypassing the GM on a regular basis. I don't think we need another person looming over the next GM's shoulders, especially when that person is the previous long-term GM. The next GM would be nothing but a puppet being pulled in multiple directions with no real power.

I think the big reason this is already being discussed is money. Melvin recently had a quote about realizing their window was 2011-2012 and that the longer you wait to "re-tool," the longer it will take to get through the rebuild. This seems to show that Melvin has been telling Attanasio this for a few years. Attanasio probably truly believed he had the makings of one last shot at the playoffs, and was willing to approve a team record payroll to try to make that happen. With this start, ticket sales are almost certain to drop, and Attanasio is likely expecting to lose millions of dollars. He's an investment guy, and he didn't hedge his risk, so his outlet is to sell before the bleeding gets too bad. They could just trade off the guys who will be free agents, and that would save a lot of money (assuming they are tradable), but with Garza's name being thrown around, it makes me really believe Attanasio is finally accepting what Melvin has been telling him. There is no way they would trade Garza if they have plans on "going for it" next year. You could be right. They could go on a winning streak and Attanasio could change his mind, but I think that right now Brewer management is leaning heavily towards selling off in a big way.

The "between the lines" on that is that the team may be willing to trade Gomez. From a "this team needs a complete rebuild" mindset, trading Lucroy would make sense, but they do still want to sell some tickets and Lucroy is the "face of the franchise." Plus, with his "this team needs a kick in the butt" comment, I could see him becoming the team leader under Counsell, especially if some other big personalities (Gomez) are not around. And there is the "veteran catcher helping a young pitching staff" thing. The Brewers do not think they have a chance to compete. Everything they're saying looks like that's the case. However, that inner skeptic keeps telling me not to believe it until it happens :-)

he was their best paid problem I'd say he was their worst paid problem :-) Good call bringing up that bad deal.

If the Brewers are holding a fire sale, anything they receive doesn't have to be MLB ready. Yeah, I'd be fine with Peralta, Nelson, Fiers, Jungmann, Thornburg for the rest of the year. Heck, if we get a big enough package for Peralta or Fiers, they could be traded and someone else from the AA/AAA rotation could get called up. If they go full bore on this thing, then it's about getting talented prospects back and seeing what you have with your own young guys. Thornburg and Jungmann are as ready as they'll ever be to be given a spot in a rebuilding team's rotation. We may need to get a veteran journeyman on a one-year deal for next year if the team doesn't feel any guys are ready, but I'd really rather just see what we have in-house, even if it means taking some lumps in the win/loss column. We should get some pitching back to go along with our current farmhands, so hopefully we'll fill out a rotation with young talent before too long. I get what you're saying by "unless we get a good offer," and there's nothing forcing our hand to trade Garza now, but hopefully a GM will look at his track record and give us something decent for him. He and his contract are unnecessary for the Brewers if they're rebuilding, but I remember how giddy Attanasio was when he had a chance to sign him, so hopefully another owner/GM will feel the same way about trading for him. I can't see his value going up a whole lot as time ticks away, so we might as well try to trade him to a team with pitching needs this season.

My guess: Thornburg will be happy to give him the number as long as he's at least considered for a rotation spot once Lohse and Garza are traded away.

So when Mark has been going around talking to Boras nearly every year signing free agents, Melvin likely wasn't trying to throw up roadblocks saying hey Mark, you probably shouldn't sign Lohse and give up our draft pick, regardless of what you read on Fangraphs about late first round picks. Melvin also got fired in Texas for telling the owner that signing A-Rod was a dumb idea. He probably figures it's safer to quietly let the owner make his free agent mistakes, while doing what he can to fill the rest of the roster with the money that's left over. It's hard to start over with a new organization when you're in your 60's, so while he discusses the team with Attanasio, he probably doesn't go overboard on criticism or try to tell him what to do or who to speak with.